In a region famous for warmongers and tyrants, who is the most dangerous man in the Middle East right now?
Not Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the isolated gauleiter of Damascus. Not disgraced Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the royal executioner. Not even misogynist-in-chief Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the local neighborhood bully.
Step forward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, easily the most convincing contender for the “danger man” title.
Netanyahu has outdone himself of late, threatening war with Iran , ordering one-off attacks, assassinating a top scientist, sabotaging international fence-mending and defying the US, his nation’s indispensable ally.
The mystery explosion on April 11 at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, which destroyed crucial equipment, was the most spectacular strike since the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack. Except it is no mystery. Anonymous “intelligence sources” freely admitted Israeli involvement.
Netanyahu, ace provocateur, wanted Iran and the world to know whodunnit.
It was like waving a red flag at a bull.
The amazing thing about this risky high-wire act is that Netanyahu leads Israel on sufferance only. Four times in the past two years he has sought and failed to secure an electoral mandate for his paranoid brand of nationalistic, borderline racist, right-wing populist politics.
He has also lost former US president Donald Trump, a powerful like-minded ally.
If the majority of voters who view him, at best, as an embarrassment were able to decide the outcome of ongoing talks on forming Israel’s next coalition government, Netanyahu’s long reign as prime minister would be brought to an end.
The courts might save them the trouble. Netanyahu is being tried for alleged corruption. He denies any wrongdoing.
Israeli and US commentators suggest this predicament might be the key to understanding Netanyahu’s efforts to derail indirect negotiations between Iran and the US on resurrecting the 2015 nuclear deal.
“Sowing ... fear and crisis is his best hope for holding on to power,” Slate analyst Fred Kaplan wrote.
“The prevailing conventional wisdom in Israel ... is that Netanyahu is deliberately and dangerously escalating an ongoing, low-intensity confrontation with Iran, with two interlocking objectives,” Haaretz columnist Alon Pinkas wrote.
First, “a national security crisis could change the adverse political environment he is facing,” he wrote.
Second, by dramatizing his obsession with a hypothetically nuclear-armed Iran, Netanyahu hopes to “disrupt and complicate” the US-Iran talks, he added.
His undermining of Israel’s closest ally was self-serving.
“First, you create a confrontation with the US, then market yourself as the only actor capable of defusing it,” Pinkas wrote.
US President Joe Biden agrees with the UK and EU that the much-battered 2015 nuclear deal still offers the best way of ensuring Iran, which insists it does not want nuclear weapons, keeps its word.
Trump’s 2018 repudiation of the agreement and imposition of swingeing US sanctions, predictably led to escalating, retaliatory noncompliance by Iran. Ironically, this absurd own-goal pushed Tehran closer to acquiring bomb-making capability. Regional instability increased in parallel, with a rise in tit-for-tat attacks.
The same self-defeating pattern repeated last week after the Natanz blast. Forced to respond to Netanyahu’s public provocation, Iran said that it would install more advanced centrifuges and step up uranium enrichment. It also reportedly fired a missile at an Israeli ship in the Persian Gulf.
It could have been much worse, militarily and politically, but Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei overruled hardliners and instructed negotiators not to walk out of the Vienna talks.
Even this blindly anti-US leader saw the trap set by Netanyahu.
Israel’s security now depends, in effect, on Iran’s self-restraint.
By allowing Israeli officials for the first time to confirm sabotage operations and attacks that were previously denied or covered up, Netanyahu is purposefully pushing Israel’s so-called “shadow war” with Iran into the open, rendering it potentially more volatile and uncontainable.
This could negatively impact Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza Strip, where proxy-type conflicts simmer, and set back Israel’s bridge-building in the Persian Gulf.
It could empower reactionary forces in June’s Iranian presidential election and dash reformists’ hopes. Its polarizing effect endangers all Israelis.
As Netanyahu surely knows, overt confrontation might also force the Europeans to publicly take Israel’s side, upsetting their delicate diplomatic balancing act. It is already happening.
France, Germany and the UK jointly condemned Iran’s enrichment plan, but made no mention of sabotage at Natanz.
The descent into violence has been accelerating since Trump and Netanyahu trashed the nuclear deal three years ago, Pinkas wrote.
“During this period, a primarily air, occasional land, and cyberwar campaign against Iranian targets was extended into maritime operations ... and targeted assassinations on Iranian soil... The last several days are not a qualitative escalation, but an outing. This is no longer a shadow war... This is war,” Pinkas wrote.
Netanyahu’s machinations personally challenge Biden.
There is no love lost between the two men. They disagree sharply on Palestine. Biden distrusts Netanyahu’s Saudi Arabian cronies. He has not forgotten the slights and insults of the administration of former US president Barack Obama, and the cosiness with Trump and the Republicans. He will not be railroaded into another Middle East conflict.
“Biden is well positioned to put the squeeze on Netanyahu ... [his] commitment to Israel is long established,” Kaplan wrote. “It is as good a time as any for a US president to make clear that US interests cannot be subordinated to the domestic political strategies of a prime minister, not even an Israeli prime minister.”
Such sentiments constitute a warning.
Netanyahu says his nation is not bound by agreements reached by others, even its “best friends.” Yet Israel cannot take US goodwill for granted indefinitely.
The latest US intelligence assessment flatly contradicts Netanyahu — it finds no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.
Although weakened, wounded, risibly disorganized, divided, ravaged by COVID-19, corrupt and badly led, Iran remains a threat — but, politically speaking, Netanyahu is the bigger danger right now. Israelis should sack him before he does any more harm.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS